14 Ashi Zeshan

3rd International Conference on Assessing Quality in Higher Education, 6th – 8th December, 2010, Lahore – Pakistan

ASSESSING SERVICE QUALITY IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Ms. Ashi Zeshan

Department of Business Education, Institute of Education & Research,

University of the Punjab, Lahore – Pakistan

Ashi Zeshan is presently working in Faculty of Education, University of the Punjab in the capacity of permanent Lecturer. She has been teaching management related subjects since 2002. She has submitted her PhD thesis and waiting for viva. Her Research area in PhD was “Exploring the perception of university management and faculty about the impact of change factors on business schools in Pakistan”. Her research interests include change management and Quality management in Organizations.

219


ASSESSING SERVICE QUALITY IN BUSINESS SCHOOLS: IMPLICATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Ms. Ashi Zeshan, Ms. Tahira Afridi, Mr. Sarfraz M. Khan

Institute of Education & Research, University of the Punjab, Lahore – Pakistan

ABSTRACT Purpose: Measuring service quality in business schools has gained great momentum due to increased competition among institutes. Quality experts opined that measuring service satisfaction is one of the greatest challenges of the quality movement implementation. The literature suggests that there is mounting pressure from stakeholders, students, parents and employers to close the increasing gap between institutional quality and their expectations. Therefore, this study was designed to assess service quality in business schools according to SERVQUAL model in the perception of students. Design: Survey research was used to achieve the objectives of the research study. Eight business schools were taken as sample from public and private sectors randomly. A structured questionnaire was adopted with five dimensions of service quality (Tangibility, Reliability, Responsiveness, Assurance, and Empathy) recommended in SERVQUAL model containing 20 statements. The responses of 300 business graduates were taken on five-point Likert rating scale. The collected data was analyzed by frequencies, mean, t-test, one way ANOVA and independent sample t-test. Findings: Students perceive low quality in all the dimensions of SERVQUAL model in all institutes. Originality/value: The research study may be helpful for management of institutes to improve the service quality as per stakeholders’ expectations. Key Words: Business schools, Service quality, SERVQUAL Paper Type: Research Paper

220


INTRODUCTION Increased competition in the educational environment has contributed to the growing importance of service quality measurement at business schools (Gbadamosi, Gbolahan & De Jager, Johan 2008). Quality experts believe that, 'measuring customer satisfaction at an educational establishment might be regarded by educators as one of the greatest challenges of the quality movement' in higher education (Quinn, et. al. 2009). Therefore, it is vital for business schools to actively monitor the quality of services and commit to continuously improve to the needs of stakeholders. In the last decade, there is huge demand in Pakistan for business education. As a result a number of private and foreign business institutes enter in Pakistani market to compete for students. Most of the institutes are striving to attract students by supplying improved services. There is increasing pressure from the customer of business education, which includes student, parents, executives and employers to close the widening gap between their expectations of institutional performance and actual performance. But unfortunately, there are a few researches on the quality measurement concept which can be used to improve the service quality of Pakistani business schools as per expectations of stakeholders. Therefore, this study intends to measure the service quality offered by Pakistani business schools in the perception of the students through SERVQUAL model.

MEASURING SERVICE QUALITY In the search for a reliable method of measuring service quality there has been little consensus on the methodology which is of general applicability in all service industries (Faganel, 2010). There are a number of models used by various researchers to measure the services’ quality. For instance, The Image Model of Grönroos (used by Sachdev, & Verma, 2004); Lethenin & Lethenin’s 3-Dimension Model for Measuring Service Quality (1992); ECSI, European customer satisfaction index (used by Martensen, Gronholdt, Eskildsen & Kristensen, 2000); SERVPERF( used by Fagnel, 2010); HEdPERF (used by Abdulllah 2006). SERVQUAL model presented by Parasuraman, Zeithaml and Berry (1985) was the most experimented model in last decades (Faganel, 2010). A number of researches have been conducted on the basis of SERVQUAL model (Mc Elwee and Redman, 1993; O’Neil & Wright, 2002; LaBay & Comm, 2003; Sahney et al., 2004; Barnes, 2006; Gao & Wei (year); Tyran & Ross, 2006; Yang et al., 2006; Smith et al., 2007; Lee & Tai, 2008; Yeo, 2008; Brochado, 2009). In brief, SERVQUAL is recognized as a tried and tested instrument that has been successfully applied in various different contexts (Buttle, 1996). Its strengths more than outweigh any deficiencies, and the results can be presented in a format useful for targeting specific service improvements (O'Neill and Palmer, 2001). Therefore, current research study was conducted by using this model. SERVQUAL is based on customers’ expectations and perception and comprised of five dimensions which can be defined as follows: Tangibles: physical facilities, equipment and appearance of personnel Reliability: ability to perform service dependably and accurately

221


Responsiveness: willingness to help customers and provide prompt service Assurance: knowledge and courtesy of employees and their ability to inspire trust

and confidence Empathy: caring individualized attention provided by the firm to its customers.

Service Quality in Educational settings past researches

During the last decade, quality initiatives have been the subject of an enormous amount of practitioner and academic discourse, and at various levels have found a gateway into higher education (Avdjieva and Wilson, 2002, Barnes, 2003). Ford et al., (1999) identified reputation, career opportunities, program issues, physical aspects, and location as important attributes to offer for educational service providers. Further the authors highlighted that due to high competitive environment surrounding business education, institutions need to better understand the nature and quality of service offered. Adee (1997) recommended several `university characteristics' may be useful in explaining the perceived quality among students, these being an emphasis on competent teaching, the availability of staff for student consultation, library services, computer facilities, recreational activities, class sizes, level and difficulty of subject content, and student workload. In line with the previous researchers Lau (2003) suggests a conceptual framework consisting of three factors based on learning, teaching and resources (Institutional Administrators, faculty, and Students) which are considered to influence student involvement and satisfaction. Abdullah (2006) used HEDPERF instrument consisting of 41statements to assess service quality in the higher education sector. His study confirmed that students’ perceptions of service quality are consisted of six identified dimensions: non-academic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, program issues and understanding. He suggested widening and developing of the measuring instrument from a different perspective that is from other customer groups (internal customers, employers, government, parents and general public). Table 1 highlights the past researches in educational settings to measure service quality.

Table 1 Past Researches in Educational Setting to Measure Service Quality Authors Service Quality Dimensions Entwistle and Tait, 1990 Standards of organization

Assessment and feedback Teachers’ enthusiasm and methodology Relevance and interest of the material to students Teachers’ interest in individual students Explanation of study material Difficulty, pace and quantity of workload Willingness for class involvement

Lehtinen and Lehtinen (1992) Physical Quality Interactive Quality Corporative Quality

Gronroos 2000 Technical quality Functional quality Reputational quality

222


Authors Service Quality Dimensions Hampton, 1993 Quality of education

Teaching Social life-personal Campus facilities Effort to pass courses Social life-campus Student advising

LeBlanc and Nguyen, 1994 Faculty Reputation Physical evidence Administration Curriculum Responsiveness Access to facilities

Qureshi, Mahmood, & Sajid Curriculum Contact personnel Physical Evidence Reputation Responsiveness On campus facilities Grading and assessment criteria Faculty Students Fee structure Development and planning Discipline

Pereda, Airey & Bennett, 2007 Recognition quality of instruction and interaction with faculty sufficiency of resources quality of facilities

Abdullah, 2006 non- academic aspects academic aspects Reputation Access Program issues Understanding

Martensen, 2000 Institution image Student expectations Perceived quality of non-human resources Perceived quality of human resources Perceived value Students satisfaction Students loyalty

Brochado, 2009 Tangibility Reliability Responsiveness Assurance Empathy

223


Kaleem & Rahmat (2004) conducted a research study by using SERVQUAL model and found that service quality across public and private sector business schools is below the students’ satisfaction level. Moreover, they reported that the students in private sector have more expectations than the students in public business schools. They attributed this gap due to higher fee structure in private sector. Qureshi, Mahmood, & Sajid reported in their study that business schools in both public and private sectors are not performing up to the required standards and they suggested that business schools in private sector may invest in quality education while public sector schools may invest on secondary education. Morales & Calderon conducted the research on measuring the service quality of executive education in business schools through SERVQUAL and found that reliability and empathy are the most important dimension in the perception of business schools while tangibility is at the second place. Gao & Wei (2010) in their study found that Chinese students have consistent high expectations of service quality provided by business schools, while their perceptions are relatively low which indicates that Chinese business schools need to improve their service quality. In Pakistan business education has gained great popularity owing to the growing demands for improving the quality of services to satisfy the major stakeholder, the students. In response to this popularity, there is mushrooming of business schools in Pakistan in last couple of decades. These institutions are working under Public and Private sector and are listed with Higher Education Commission of Pakistan (Lodhi, 2010). In Pakistan currently there are a few business schools from public and private sector which are providing quality in the limited context and are not able to effectively focus on quality of service delivery to the external customers (Qureshi, Mehmood & Sajid 2008). For that reason, this research study was designed to measure the perception of the students about quality of services offered by business institutes and recommend improvements for future. Objectives of the study The objectives of the study were as follows: 1) Measure the service quality of business institutes according to the SERVQUAL

model in Business schools of Lahore in the perception of students. 2) Assessing the need to improve service quality of business institutes with respect to

determinants of SERVQUAL model. 3) Assessing the need to improve service quality in the light of demographical

variables. 4) Give recommendations to improve the service quality of business institutes. 5) To achieve the research objectives the research study focused the following

questions. 6) What is the perception of students about the service quality of business institutes in

the light of SERVEQUAL model? 7) What are the areas which need improvement in service quality of business institutes

in the light of SERVQUAL model?

224


8) What is the difference in the perception about the service quality of institutes according to demographical variables?

Design of the Study This study is designed to assess service quality in business schools according to SERVQUAL model. Survey research was used to achieve the objectives of the research study. Eight business schools are taken as sample from public and private sectors randomly. The study selected a convenient sample of 500 students from eight business schools. The required data was collected through a structured questionnaire based on SERVQUAL model. The questionnaire was administered by the researcher themselves. A total of 300 questionnaires were received. The questionnaire was consisted of five SERVQUAL dimensions as used by Gao & Wei (2010). It contains 20 statements about five determinants, tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. The responses of the students were taken on five- point Liker rating scale ranging from 5 strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree. Further the respondents were assured about the ethical issues such as confidentiality and anonymity. Results and Discussion Cronbach’s Coefficients alpha was calculated to measure the internal consistency of the five SQ dimensions. The internal consistency of the scale was found 0.888. To measure the perception of students about the quality of service one sample t-test was used while for variance in demographics (for gender and sector) independent sample was used and one way ANOVA for institutional variance was used.

Table 2 One Sample t test for measuring the perception about service quality of business schools SERVEQUAL Statements Mean SD t-value df Sig.

Tangibility Up-to-date equipments. 3.9333 1.03882 15.562 299 .000* Physical facilities. 3.6767 1.11786 10.484 299 .000* Well-dressed staff. 3.8300 1.07934 13.319 299 .000* Better Competitive

Accommodation. 3.6533 1.03443 10.939 299

.000*

Reliability Keep promises with students.

3.5733 1.10848 8.959 299 .000*

Staff's Sympathy to Problems.

3.4867 1.14347 7.372 299 .000*

Honours its promises. 3.5500 1.10978 8.584 299 .000* Maintain records

accurately. 3.8867 .97827 15.699 299

.000*

Responsiveness Tell exact time about performance of services.

3.6000 1.00167 10.375 299 .000*

225


SERVEQUAL Statements Mean SD t-value df Sig.

Perform services at first time.

3.5033 1.06479 8.188 299 .000*

Staff ready to help students.

3.5700 1.17603 8.395 299 .000*

Staff respond promptly to queries.

3.4867 1.14054 7.391 299 .000*

Assurance Students trust all staff. 3.3667 1.15904 5.479 299 .000* Staff deals politely. 3.5633 1.10305 8.846 299 .000* Students feel safe while

receiving services. 3.7000 .99665 12.165 299

.000*

Professors are knowledgeable.

3.9867 .97450 17.537 299 .000*

Empathy Gives individual attention.

3.5367 1.11930 8.305 299 .000*

Professors understand specific needs.

3.5900 1.16609 8.764 299 .000*

All staff keeps students' interest at heart.

3.3000 1.16671 4.454 299 .001*

Timing suites students. 3.4467 1.36628 5.662 299 .000* *p<0.05 As table 2 illustrates that for tangibility the mean scores for all the statements are significantly above the cut point (3). It proves that all the students are agreeing with the statements that their institutions are providing them tangible facilities. In case of reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy again the mean scores of the statements are significantly higher than the test value three showing that students perceive the quality services provided by their institutions. These are not in line with the findings of Qureshi, Mehmood & Sajid (2008) that institutions in Pakistan are not providing the services up to the level of their expectations. The results show that the institutions in Pakistan are on the road to improve the quality of services in all the dimensions as per stakeholders’ expectations.

226


Table 3 One-way ANOVA Analysis of Variance for Service Quality in Sub-scales by Institutions SRVQUAL Variance Sum of

Squares Df Mean

Square F Sig.

Tangibility

Between Groups

40.878 7 5.840 14.502

.000* Within

Groups 117.584 292 .403

Total 158.462 299 Reliability

Between Groups

40.596 7 5.799 11.783

.000* Within

Groups 143.716 292 .492

Total 184.312 299 Responsiveness

Between Groups

35.071 7 5.010 9.888

.000* Within

Groups 147.949 292 .507

Total 183.020 299 Assurance

Between Groups

54.616 7 7.802 13.336

.000* Within

Groups 170.833 292 .585

Total 225.449 299 Empathy

Between Groups

873.858 7 124.837 13.336

.000* Within

Groups 2733.328 292 9.361

Total 3607.187 299 *p<0.05 Table 3 indicates that there is significant difference of service quality among the eight institutes in the perception of students. Therefore, post hoc analysis is conducted to know the variance among institutes.

227


Table 4

Tukey HSD for Multiple Comparisons of Service Quality in Sub-Scales by institutions Mean Difference (I-J)

Institutions

Sub Scales

( I) UMT LSE LUMS HCC DBE GCU HB&F

Tangibility P.Aims -.521 -.407 -1.26* -.741* -.235 -.800* -.829* UMT .114 -.748* -.220 .285 -.279 -.308 LSE -.862* -.334 .171 -.393 -.422 LUMS .527 1.03* .468* .440* HCC .506* -.059* -.087* DBE -.566* -.593* GCU -.028 Reliability P.Aims .0500 -.071 -1.08* -.442 -.349 -.563 -.762* UMT -.121 -1.132* -.492 -.399 -.613 -.812* LSE -1.010* -.371 -.277 -.492 -.690* LUMS .639* .733* .518* .319 HCC .093 -.120 -.319 DBE -.214 -.413 GCU -.198 Responsivenes P.Aims .04286 -.164 -1.11* -.276 -.270 -.543* -.448 UMT -.207 -1.153* -.319 -.313 -.586* -.491 LSE -.946* -.112 -.106 -.379 -.284 LUMS .833* .839* .566* .661* HCC .006 -.266 -.171 DBE -.272 -.177 GCU .095 Assurance P.Aims .17857 -.271 -1.306* -.258 -.471 -.707* -.593* UMT -.450 -1.48* -.437 -.650 -.886* -.771* LSE -1.03* .012 -.200 -.436 -.321 LUMS 1.048* .835* .599* .713 HCC -.212 -.448 -.334 DBE -.236 -.121 GCU .114 Empathy P.Aims -.714 1.08 5.22* 1.035 1.885 2.830 2.373 UMT 1.800 5.94* 1.75 2.60 3.54* 3.08* LSE 4.14* -.050 .800 1.744 1.287 LUMS -4.192* -3.342* -2.39* -2.85* HCC .850 1.794 1.337 DBE .944 .487 GCU -.456 *p<0.05

228


The institution wise results are as follows: With respect to PAK AIMS, it is evident from the analysis that in tangibility dimension of SERVQUAL Pak Aims students significantly perceive low quality of services than the students of LUMS, HCC, GCU and HB &F. But in reliability dimension respondents perceive its performance lower than LUMS and HB & F respondents. While for assurance and responsiveness the mean difference revealed that Pak Aims is not doing well in providing service quality in comparison to LUMS and HB&F. This means that Pak Aims needs to improve its services in all its dimensions. The students in UMT perceive that the institute is not providing better services than the perception of LUM, HCC & HB &F students in all the dimensions. Moreover the mean of other institutions are high in most of the categories, implying that institute is not providing quality services and needs to improve. For LSE the analysis revealed that the mean difference is significantly lower as compared to LUMS, HCC & HB & F in all service quality dimensions except empathy. While HCC, DBE & GCU respondents means are higher than LSE but not significant. Interestingly for LUMS, the highest ranking institute in Pakistan, students perception is highv for all categories i.e. tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance and empathy. These results are not in line with the findings of Kaleem & Rahmat (2004) study which found that the highest gap of perceptions and expectations exist in the responses of LUMS student. They attribute this gap to the high expectation of services against the high fee structure at LUMS. Variance in Responses with respect to Gender & Sector The independent sample test revealed that there is no difference of opinion among respondents with respect to gender and sector. The findings are in line with the past researches (Qureshi, Mehmood & Sajid (2008); Kaleem & Rahmat (2004). CONCLUSION Measuring service quality is very important to retain students in any institution. But perception of quality is different for different stakeholders. In this research study, most of the statements means fall in the range of 3.3- 3.9 which means that there is room to improve the quality of services to survive in competitive environment. Therefore, institutions may improve their services in the light of discussed dimensions of SERVQUAL according to the perceptions of major stakeholder- that is students.

229


REFERENCES 1) Abdullah, F. (2006). The development of HEdPERF: a new measuring instrument of

service quality for the higher education sector, Int. J. of Cons. Stud. 30: 569-581. 2) Adee, A. (1997), ªLinking Student Satisfaction and Service Quality Perceptions: The

Case of University Educationº, European Journal of Marketing, 37 (7), 528-535. 3) Avdjieva, M. and Wilson, M. (2002). Exploring the Development of Quality in

Higher Education. Managing Service Quality. 12 (6), 372-383. 4) Barnes, B.R (2006). Analysing Service Quality: The Case of Post-Graduate Chinese

Students. ISSN nr. 1743-6796 5) Brochado, A. (2009). Comparing alternative instruments to measure service quality

in higher education, Q. Assur. In Edu. 17, 174-190. 6) Buttle, F. (1996), ªSERVQUAL: Review, Critique, Research Agendaº, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 8-32. 7) Entwistle, N. J. & Tait, H. (1990). Approaches to learning evaluation of teaching and

preferences for contrasting academic environments. Higher Education. 18, 483-490. 8) Faganel, A. 2010. QUALITY PERCEPTION GAP INSIDE THE HIGHER

EDUCATION INSTITUTION. International Journal of academic research. 2( 1), 213-215. 9) Ford, J. B., Joseph, M. and Joseph, B. (1999). Importance-Performance Analysis as a

Strategic Tool for Service Marketers: The Case of Service Quality Perceptions of Business Students in New Zealand and the USA. The Journal of Services Marketing. 13 (2), 171-181.

10) Gbadamosi, Gbolahan & De Jager, Johan. 2008. Measuring Service Quality in South Africa Higher Education: Developing a Multidimensional Scale. Global Business and Technology Association (GBATA), United States. ISBN 1-932917-04-7

11) Gao, Y. & Wei, W. (2010). Measuring Service Quality and Satisfaction of Student in Chinese Business Education.. Accessed from world wide web. http://it.swufe.edu.cn/UploadFile/other/xsjl/sixwuhan/Paper/IM131.pdf

12) Grönroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing. A customer relationship management approach. Wiley, Chichester.

13) Hampton, G. M. (1993). Gap analysis of college student satisfaction as a measure of professional service quality. Journal of professional service marketing. 9 (1),115-128

14) Kaleem, A. & Rahmat (2004). Analyzing the Services quality of Business Schools In Pakistan: A Comparative and Analytical View. In proceedings of South Asian Management Forum, PP-86-95.

15) LaBay, D. G. and Comm, C. L. (2003), ªA Case Study Using Gap Analysis to Assess Distance Learning versus Traditional Course Deliveryº, The International Journal of Education Management, Vol. 17, Nos 6&7, pp. 312-317.

16) Lau, L. K. (2003), Institutional Factors Affecting Student Retention, Education. 124(1), 126-136.

17) Lee, J.-W. & Tai. S.W. (2008). Critical factors affecting customer satisfaction and higher education in Kazakhstanv. International Journal of Management in Education. 2, 46–59.

18) Leblanc, Nguyen, G. & Nha, (1994). Searching for excellence in business education: An exploratory study of customer impression s of service quality. In proceedings of

230

http://it.swufe.edu.cn/UploadFile/other/xsjl/sixwuhan/Paper/IM131.pdf


the Annual Conference of the Administrative Sciences Association of Canada, Education Management Division. 15(10), 1-118

19) Lehtinen,U. and Lehtinen,J.R.,(1992). Service Quality: A Study of Quality Dimensions.

20) Working Paper, Service Management Institute, helsinki. 21) Lodhi, A. S. (2009). Factors Affecting The Faculty Retention In The Selected Pakistani

Business Schools. A Dissertation Presented to the School of Education University of Leicester

22) Martensen, Gronholdt, Eskildsen & Kristensen, 2000. Measuring Student Oriented Quality In Higher Education: Application of The ECSI Methodology. sinergie rapporti di ricerca

23) Mc Elwee, G. & Redman, T. 1993. Upward appraisal in practice: An illustrative example using the Qualid model. Education + Training. 35(2), 27-31.

24) Morales, M. & Calderson, F. L. Assessing service quality in schools of business: dimensions of service quality in continuing professional education (CPE). Accessed from world wide web on April, (2010) http://www.esan.edu.pe/paginas/pdf/Morales.pdf

25) O'Neill, M and Palmer, A. (2001), ªSurvey Timing and Consumer Perceptions of Service Quality: An Overview of Empirical Evidenceº, Managing Service

26) Quality, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 182-190. 27) O'Neill, and C. Wright. (2002). Service quality evaluation in the higher education

sector: an empirical investigation of student perceptions. High. Edu. Res. and Devel. 21: 23-40.

28) Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A. & Berry, L. (1985). A conceptual model of service quality and its implications for future research. Journal of Marketing. 49, 41-50.

29) Pereda, Airey, D & Bennett, M (2007), Service Quality in Higher Education: The Experience of Overseas Students, journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Education, 6(2), PP- 55-67.

30) Quinn, Lemay, Larsen, & Johnson. 2009. Service quality in higher education. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 20 (2), 139 – 152

31) Qureshi, A.A, Mahmood, U & Sajid, A, (2008), Impact of Quality of Service Delivery in Business Education, In Proceedings of 11th QMOD Conference. Quality Management and Organizational Development Attaining Sustainability From Organizational Excellence to Sustainable Excellence. Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering, Islamabad, Pakistan.

32) Rigotti, S. & Pitt, L. 1992. SERVQUAL as a measuring instrument for service provider gaps in business schools. Management Research News. 15(3), 9-17.

33) Sachdev, S.B & Verma, H.V (2004), Relative importance of Service Quality Dimensions; A Multisectoral Study, journal of Services Research. 6(1), 93-116.

34) Sahney, S. Banwet, D.K. & Karunes, S. (2004). A SERVQUAL and QFD approach to total quality education: A student perspective. Int. J. of Prod. and Perf. Meas. 53: 143-166.

35) Smith, G. A. & Clarke, A. (2007). Evaluating service quality in universities: a service department perspective. Q. Assur. in Edu. 15, 334-351.

231

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=t713447980

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=t713447980

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title%7Edb=all%7Econtent=g908530258


232

36) Tyran & Ross, 2006. Service Quality Expectations And Perceptions: Use Of The Servqual Instrument For Requirements Analysis. Issues in Information Systems. 7 (1), 357-362

37) Yang, Z., Yan-Ping, L. & Jie, T. (2006).Study on Quality Indicators in Higher Education: An Application of the SERVQUAL Instrument, Paper presented at International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management, October 25-27, in Troyes.

38) Yeo, R.K. Brewing service quality in higher education. Q. Assur. in Edu. 16: 266-286 (2008).

14 Ashi Zeshan

Documents

Transcript of 14 Ashi Zeshan